Google Translate Disclaimer

This link to the Google Translate web application is provided for the convenience of our website visitors and is for informational purposes only.

The California Energy Commission does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any translation produced by the Google Translate automated web application and is not liable for any inaccurate information resulting from the use of the Google Translate.

The California Energy Commission does not endorse the use of Google Translate; other translation services may be available to translate the information on our site. Please refer to the Energy Commission's website Conditions of Use.

Bottle Rock Geothermal Power Plant

Docket Number:

The California Energy Commission approved this project's Application For Certification on December 13, 2006. The Commission monitors the power plant's construction, operation and eventual decommissioning through a compliance proceeding.

Key Dates

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

The Bottle Rock Power Plant (BRPP), originally owned by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), was certified in November 1980. The 55 megawatt geothermal project was constructed and began operating in February 1985.

The licensed BRPP consists of one 55 MW geothermal turbine-generator manufactured by the Fuji Electric Corporation, an Ecol-Aire condenser system, a Research-Cottrell counter flow cooling tower with five cells, a Peabody-designed Stretford system to abate hydrogen sulfide, and an existing steam field comprised of three separate well pads.

The BRPP is located within a leasehold of approximately 350 acres known as the Francisco Leasehold on High Valley Road, Glenbrook Area, Lake County, within the Geyser Known Geothermal Resource Area. The project is located near the town of Cobb.

In November 1990, DWR suspended operation of the Bottle Rock project due to insufficient steam production; the steam field for Bottle Rock could only produce about 15 MW instead of the licensed 55 MW capacity. The plant was eventually placed into cold stand-by state.

In April 1993, the Energy Commission approved an amendment modifying monitoring and reporting requirements in consideration of the plant's shutdown status. While Bottle Rock was shutdown, DWR continued attempts to sell the facility as an alternative to permanent closure.

In May 2001, the Energy Commission approved Bottle Rock's ownership transfer from DWR to the Bottle Rock Power Corporation (BRPC).

In December 2006, the Energy Commission approved BRP’s restart of operations, including 11 design changes at the facility, and transferring ownership from BRPC to Bottle Rock Power, LLC (BRP). Bottle Rock Power, LLC has been owned by BRP Holdco, LLC since 2006 when US Renewables Group (USRG) and Riverstone-Carlyle (Riverstone) bought the project and funded the re-start effort. BRP HoldCo, LLC is still the owner of Bottle Rock Power, LLC.

In December 2013, the Energy Commission approved a petition amending the conditions of certification for the BRP maintaining the bond requirement for the project but adjusting the required amount from $5 Million to $1,341,500 in 2014, increasing to $1,676,875 in 2019.

In April 2015, Bottle Rock Power issued a letter stating they would be shutting down and placed into standby mode effective April 1, 2015 for an undetermined length of time.

On November 20, 2015 Baseload Clean Energy Partners, LLC purchased 100% of the membership interests in BRP HoldCo, LLC from USRG/Riverstone. There was no change in operational control of Bottle Rock Power, LLC or in ownership of that entity by BRP Holdco, LLC, although the upstream corporate ownership did change.

Energy Commission Facility Certification Process

The California Energy Commission is the lead agency (for licensing thermal power plants 50 megawatts and larger) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has a certified regulatory program under CEQA.
Under its certified program, the Energy Commission is exempt from having to prepare an environmental impact report.
Its certified program, however, does require environmental analysis of the project, including an analysis of alternatives and mitigation measures to minimize any significant adverse effect the project may have on the environment.